Is a one-state solution the way to peace?

It has been reported this week that Israel has objected to the nomination of former Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto as the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East. Its objection came for two reasons. The first is his proximity to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who Tel Aviv considers to be anti-Israel, and the second is because he advocates a two-state solution.

For decades, Israel has been claiming it seeks a two-state solution, but it always found reasons not to pursue one. Now, Israel is revealing its real intention. It never wanted a two-state solution. It wants to maintain the status quo forever. In the meantime, it continues its land grab. Now that it is vocal in its real intentions, it is time to push for a one-state solution.

The issue of Palestine has been lingering for 80 years. The Palestinian people have suffered several waves of ethnic cleansing. Obviously, previous methods used to garner Palestinians freedom and dignity need revising. There have been several attempts to provide them with a state since the 1980s, including the Fez Initiative of 1981, the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accords, the Arab Peace Initiative and the 2007 Annapolis Conference.

Israel has refused all solutions offered, while accusing Arabs and Palestinians of being rejectionists. Now it is bluntly saying that it does not want a two-state solution. It is time to have the courage to play the Israelis at their own game. It is time to impose a long-term solution that will bring dignity and freedom for everyone from the river to the sea.

Israel is revealing its real intention. It never wanted a two-state solution. It wants to maintain the status quo forever

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

The last offer was the so-called deal of the century presented by Donald Trump in 2020. It was a no-go project. Israel would not have had to dismantle any settlements, the proposed Palestinian state would have no sovereignty and Israel would keep 30 percent of the West Bank.

Today, a Palestinian state is impossible to realize, given that settlements are scattered all over the West Bank. A Palestinian state would mean a set of Bantustans inside the West Bank. It would not be a viable state that offered dignity to its citizens.

A one-state solution is more feasible than a two-state solution. Israel has created a new reality on the ground where a two-state solution is impossible. However, the status quo is also impossible to maintain, especially after Israel’s war on Gaza, which amounts to genocide. Of course, Israel’s aim is to get rid of the Palestinians. Several officials have spoken about encouraging “voluntary” migration. This means making life for the Palestinians so unbearable that they choose to leave their land.

This should be a red line. In this day and age, population transfer like the Israeli leadership dreams of should not be permitted. However, Israel should be offered an alternative. The solution is forming a single state, thereby allowing for the free movement of goods and people from Palestine and giving them political representation.

For the Trump administration, this would cater to the US evangelicals, who are the core base of the president-elect. For ideological reasons, the evangelicals want Israel to have full sovereignty over all of historic Palestine.

In return, Palestinians would become citizens of Israel and enjoy the same rights as Israelis. The name of the new state can be agreed upon later.

A one-state solution would allow Palestinians to have their rights and to have political representation within the state of Israel 

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

Full annexation would allow the Trump administration to coopt the extreme left. The extreme left does not talk about a two-state solution. It talks about decolonizing Palestine and about people having equal rights from the river to the sea. The Trump administration faces a massive battle with those on the left on immigration. Appeasing them on Palestine might be an attractive option.

The Palestinians are under Israeli military rule today and do not have any rights. They are occupied by Israel, while Israelis live under civilian rule. A one-state solution would allow Palestinians to have their rights and to have political representation within the state of Israel, similar to the 2 million Palestinians who already have Israeli citizenship.

The Israelis have long opposed a Palestinian state because of the potential security risk it would entail. In the Israeli psyche, living on their own, the Palestinians would organize violent attacks against Israel. Hence the security complex they have. However, when the state becomes theirs as well, there would be no reason to fight it.

Israel might very well reject this solution the same way it rejected the previous initiatives. This solution would provide them with security; however, it would also dilute the so-called Jewishness of the state. Israel’s chauvinists would not want to one day see a Palestinian prime minister of Israel.

However, Israel needs to be pressured to make a choice. In this respect, it should be offered an alternative. The one-state solution is a viable alternative to the two-state solution. Five million Palestinians cannot remain stateless. The Israelis need to understand that they either give the Palestinians a viable state of their own or they integrate them within their state. If the Israelis refuse, they will show the world that they are the rejectionists.

• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.